On Dec/29, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> I've just pushed my changes to the git repo. Could you please review
> it once ? I'd like you to have your comments/feedback before we
> decide on uploading it.
>
> Apart from the main file name change, there are other minor changes.
It all looks good to me.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello Sebastien,
I've just pushed my changes to the git repo. Could you please review it once ?
I'd like you to have your comments/feedback before we decide on uploading it.
Apart from the main file name change, there are other minor changes.
PS:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, 2016-12-29 at 10:41 +0100, Sébastien Delafond wrote:
> > So, unless there is a concern, I'd want to target this change for the
> > next upload of both the tools. The bpfcc follow-up upload is pending
> > because of a FTBFS bug. And on the per
On Dec/29, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> I think we should stick with this proposal of appending the type along
> with the name.
>
> 1. On autocompletions, it'd autocomplete to "execsnoop-", which is an
> invalid name either way. This will expect the user to pay attention
> and fire the correct comma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 23:18 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> The binary file names are conflicting for bcc and perf-tools-unstable. I don't
> see a reason why one cannot co-install both the packages and use. But in its
> current form, it'll fail com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi Sebastien,
On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 08:25 +0100, Sébastien Delafond wrote:
> Hi Ritesh,
>
> I agree with you, there is no reason we can't coexist :)
>
> However, perf-tools-unstable doesn't seem to be much more updated these
> days, and it sorta w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 22:40 +0100, Christian Seiler wrote:
> > many thanks for the explanation, so from a technical point of
> > view there is no package naming conflict, although it is somewhat
> > counter-intuitive to end up with a source-package "
Hi Ritesh,
I agree with you, there is no reason we can't coexist :)
However, perf-tools-unstable doesn't seem to be much more updated these
days, and it sorta worries me, especially since Brendan Gregg mentions
on his blog that bcc seems to be the future: in that light, do you still
see a need fo
On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 00:56 +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Hello Karsten,
>
> On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 20:05 +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > bcc is a package (and executable) name that is already in use for
> > another program in Debian. From https://packages.debian.org/sid/bcc:
>
On 11/30/2016 10:32 PM, Karsten Merker wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 12:56:14AM +0530, Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
>> On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 20:05 +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
>>> bcc is a package (and executable) name that is already in use for
>>> another program in Debian. From https://packages.d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello Karsten,
On Wed, 2016-11-30 at 20:05 +0100, Karsten Merker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> bcc is a package (and executable) name that is already in use for
> another program in Debian. From https://packages.debian.org/sid/bcc:
I'm aware of it. bcc is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello Sebastien,
First of all, thanks for maintaining perf-tools-unstable. I use it many a times.
I just completed the major chunk of bcc packaging. I intend to maintain it under
collab-maint/ too.
The binary file names are conflicting for bcc an
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ritesh Raj Sarraf
* Package name: bcc
Version : 0.2.0
Upstream Author : IO Visor Project (https://github.com/iovisor)
* URL : https://github.com/iovisor/bcc
* License : Apache 2.0
Programming Lang: C, Python
Descripti
13 matches
Mail list logo
